Search results

And..

I like this bit:

But also did the studies finding reduced NK function in major depression ensure they excluded ME/CFS patients?

The quote from the CCC has the heading: Post-exertional malaise and/or Fatigue: I think this has, unfortunately, been poorly written. It could be interpreted as (Post-exertional malaise) and/or (Fatigue): which is how you have interpreted it, or as Post-exertional (malaise and/or Fatigue)...

Have any studies looked at this?

I think he means they find correlation and have stretched that to be "the only determinant". They do this all the time and it really pisses me off. Correlation is perfectly understandable. As pwme we are valid witnesses to our condition. We have weighed our experience of the condition and...

That is what I thought must be the case. Is it well understood in medical and medical research circles that such statements only imply correlation? Somehow it feels like, after such statements have been repeated enough times, causality inferences get attached automatically (at least in the BPS...

If someone says "studies show X increases the risk of Y" how often has that been rigorously demonstrated and how often has mere correlation been shown? That is how often do such statements arise from abusing the "correlation implies causation" fallacy?

I don't think it will be of interest to anyone here. It is an uncritical review of the Larun et al. Cochrane review rhat sounds like it was written for a medical student assignment (and was finished just in time for the due date without time for proofreading!) The final paragraph sums up...

Brilliant. Thank you @Brian Hughes for a concise and insightful summary of the way things are.

But that doesn't remove it from the list of logical fallacies. And I doubt it will hold any sway in the NICE deliberations.

I never find this argument effective and actually cringe somewhat when I hear it. It is a political argument and I don't think that will lead to anyone changing their minds. What we need are arguments based on evidence. To see what I mean, imagine if it were the other way around and the...

It sounds like the medical term iatrogenic harm i.e., harm caused by the medical treatment.

A reset doesn't need to be that drastic. A decent sized asteroid impact seemed to do the trick with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Unless of course the problems are due to evolutionary baggage we're still carrying from the Cambrian explosion.

From the link above https://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-review-management/policy-withdrawing-published-cochrane-reviews-including-protocols Does this mean the clock is ticking on the new individual patient data GET review? If so, how much time is left?

Someone made the same comment elsewhere on the forum recently: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You may be interested in https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5257-0_31 and https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1969.tb02089.x I haven't read them, just wanted to see if scihub would come through.

Who is the GET proponent?

All the comments are positive.

When one network (the old boys network) is responsible for so much damage to the rigor and reliability of UK science, what should be done? ... Ah, of course, a new network. That should fix it!